Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 01 2024 22:39 Harris1st wrote: As a non US citizen, I am pretty flabbergasted why one would even consider voting Trump over Harris. Can someone point me out logical reasons what Trump would actually do for the country besides "guns for everybody" and "damn those mexicans stealing our jobs?"
Demócrats don't get their Guy/Gal elected. That's the main motivation. Both sides work the same way in that regard, but the rethoric needed to energize their base is different.
It’s not just about their team winning, it’s also about Trump specifically. He’s an old, out of touch, relatively stupid, white man. He’s an unashamed racist and philanderer. He talks down to experts based on a 5 minute “news” segment he saw on Fox and is openly derisive of the law. He’s the ultimate “fuck you and your college degree and your changing world” candidate. He’s the political equivalent of putting up Confederate monuments in black majority cities. He makes a statement, ‘the world may be changing but the people with power are still the same, and don’t you forget it’. They don’t just want to beat the Democrats, they want to get back at every person who ever dared to hire a black actor for a tv commercial, they want to get back at their kids for never calling them, they want to get back at their work for the fact their manager is younger than them, they want to get back at the environment for asking them to recycle etc.
It’s the ultimate expression of identity politics. Back when white male conservatives dominated everything they could have political disagreements among themselves. There was a left vs right within the framework of white male rule and so issues mattered. Then Obama got elected and something broke within them, the foundation on which they rested their political beliefs was shattered. Now ideology and policy no longer matter to them, only identity politics. That’s why they can’t articulate what Trump has done for them or what he promises to do for them in the future. It’s why Trump doesn’t need to actually have a specific agenda or platform. It’s why people who, when asked to outline the policies that are important to them, hate everything that he does will still vote for him.
On August 01 2024 22:39 Harris1st wrote: As a non US citizen, I am pretty flabbergasted why one would even consider voting Trump over Harris. Can someone point me out logical reasons what Trump would actually do for the country besides "guns for everybody" and "damn those mexicans stealing our jobs?"
Demócrats don't get their Guy/Gal elected. That's the main motivation. Both sides work the same way in that regard, but the rethoric needed to energize their base is different.
It’s not just about their team winning, it’s also about Trump specifically. He’s an old, out of touch, relatively stupid, white man. He’s an unashamed racist and philanderer. He talks down to experts based on a 5 minute “news” segment he saw on Fox and is openly derisive of the law. He’s the ultimate “fuck you and your college degree and your changing world” candidate. He’s the political equivalent of putting up Confederate monuments in black majority cities. He makes a statement, ‘the world may be changing but the people with power are still the same, and don’t you forget it’. They don’t just want to beat the Democrats, they want to get back at every person who ever dared to hire a black actor for a tv commercial, they want to get back at their kids for never calling them, they want to get back at their work for the fact their manager is younger than them, they want to get back at the environment for asking them to recycle etc.
It’s the ultimate expression of identity politics. Back when white male conservatives dominated everything they could have political disagreements among themselves. There was a left vs right within the framework of white male rule and so issues mattered. Then Obama got elected and something broke within them, the foundation on which they rested their political beliefs was shattered. Now ideology and policy no longer matter to them, only identity politics. That’s why they can’t articulate what Trump has done for them or what he promises to do for them in the future. It’s why Trump doesn’t need to actually have a specific agenda or platform. It’s why people who, when asked to outline the policies that are important to them, hate everything that he does will still vote for him.
And some, I assume are good people.
It seems to inform Trump's "Kamala turned black" comment last night. It's obviously racist what he said, and it obviously stems from that white male framework, and so, given that, of course they're surprised when their main political adversary isn't a white man like Biden, or even a white woman like Hillary. In a sense, Trump isn't referring to Kamala Harris turning black, instead it's the (very orange) face of white America recognizing that the conversation around who leads the country isn't all about white people anymore.
Pretty sure it's self-evidently a cynical response to the fact that she exploits whatever identity is politically convenient to her at the time. She certainly exploited her sex. For example, in 2016 she was notably the first (half) Indian Senator, because that for some reason looks better on a resume than "10th or so (half) Black Senator" or simply "US Senator" which most of us who don't agree with radical leftists' weird "one drop rule" of race realism, think is the main point - this is the party that brought the entire country to understand Obama was black, when Obama is mixed. They're even stricter than the actual segregationists, when "one drop" was 1/16th ancestry. Elizabeth Warren is portrayed to us as "Native American" when she has between 1/32nd and 1/512th Native ancestry.
People are not being obviously racist when they laugh in the face of politicians bringing this shit up. They are not laughing at the race. They are laughing at the bringing-up.
Nobody* is arguing that you can't be part black and part Indian at the same time, people are arguing nobody should care about either, and in fact neither matters especially if you're just opportunistically using it for political optics. In fact, if someone is doing that, it's actually a negative rather than a positive or neutral signal towards their character. Why'd she make the marked and conscious decision to emphasize black over Indian now? It's not complicated. For VP or President, rather than Senator? Now "first black woman" gets top billing on the simple basis that it's a larger voting bloc target. So she's been pushing that since her 2020 campaign, as did Biden when he made a list of four black women to be his VP.
*no one intelligent anyway - but obviously you can't be 100% of both at the same time so the less sharp might get confused by the lack of qualifiers, but you have to let that cut both ways
Last week the NYT said her Indian heritage is little advertised. Why is it little advertised, if it's equally half and half with her black heritage? Well, who's the first one advertising it?
Here she is even attempting to change accents to pander based on the audience she is speaking to (first part of the video, later is Hillary and some others, so she joins a storied history of this weird tradition).
So this leaves the door open for a later first full black president, and full Indian president wow, it will be such a sign of progress on the day the US finally elects him/her, to solve the $200 trillion national debt crisis at the time. She recently headlined a "White Dudes for Kamala" Zoom rally. Here is even the racist, dogwhistling Huffington Post slamming her as a DEI candidate:
Basically the average person is sick of regressive Marxists the same way they're sick of the KKK and they're realizing only one of these groups seems to get invited and even welcomed to dinner parties let alone even be found, and that it's the ideology of people who lack any moral compass, yet who still somehow have the sense to know they should make an effort to at least pretend to have some kind of simulacrum of a moral compass in order to fit in, and they have to prove that by showing and propagating it to others, often going overboard to compensate for something but that's now a tangent.
If the word Marxist is too harsh, substitute radical equity leftist, or communist, Harris is on record multiple times vowing her commitment to equity, and the idea everyone should end up in the same place, meaning equality of outcomes, or the antithesis of centuries of functioning western liberalism. Obviously this, and her record of being the most far-left Senator, and VP of a failed shell of an administration, are the most troubling.
And here I thought that the single defining feature of marxism was the goal of seizing the means of production from the bourgeoisie for the proletariat
On August 02 2024 05:26 Sbrubbles wrote: And here I thought that the single defining feature of marxism was the goal of seizing the means of production from the bourgeoisie for the proletariat
No. Marxism obviously means whatever rightwing talking heads don't like at the moment.
Also people of mixed ethnicity are not being cynical by not always mentioning their full racial breakdown every time. Like, the fuck? If I'm someone who likes pizza and ice cream, sometimes it's only pertinent to mention one of those things at a time. Sometimes it's worth mentioning both at the same time. It depends! They get enough shit in general for not being white or black enough or whatever, without right-wing assholes telling them they need to present a certain way to be acceptable. Both things are true at the same time. I can see why that's hard to grasp.
If Trump wanted to comment on Harris's race, he could've done his own fucking homework to figure out she's of black and Indian descent. It's not like she hides it. OR, you could, you know, not mention it at all? If it doesn't matter why did Trump bring it up? Saying "but Democrats" doesn't count. He's a big boy, he can take responsibility for what he says in public.
I understand that you're attempting to satirize criticisms of conservatives who mock Harris as a DEI candidate by citing a left-wing opinion piece that also refers to her as a DEI candidate, but you've forgotten the two different uses of "DEI". We've discussed this over the past week, but here it is again:
From an academic and sociological perspective, "DEI" research has shown that it's valuable to foster diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments. This includes consideration of qualified candidates (for private employment, public office, etc.) who happen to be women, people of color, and other demographics that have largely been overlooked and/or systemically discriminated against. In other words, we still care about qualified white men too, but we don't only care about them. In your cited HuffPo opinion piece, the author makes it clear that she's using this more formal definition, when she says that DEI "actually means creating practices, policies and behaviors that create better financial, mental and physical outcomes that benefit everyone, including white men".
On the other hand, conservatives assert that Harris is the Democratic nominee only because she's a woman of color, and not because she's qualified, currently the vice president, and overwhelmingly the most popular alternative to Joe Biden. These sexist and racist attacks are summarized by conservatives using the term "DEI" as a disparaging term, in the same way that they've flipped the positive academic definition of "woke" into a derisive label. The HuffPo author makes this clear - similar to how many TLers have already done so - by saying things like:
"Conservatives would have you believe that diversity, equity and inclusion give marginalized people opportunities they don’t deserve and didn’t earn. But that just isn't true."
and
"The irony is the data doesn’t match the narrative conservative pundits spin about this phenomenon ― in fact, they weave an opposite tale as old as time and as tired as their campaign slogans ― incorrectly painting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as a process of giving marginalized people opportunities they “don’t deserve” and “didn’t earn,” placing “underqualified” people in positions of power as a “handout.” This myth is built on the crusty, racist, sexist, centuries-long tropes that women and non-white people have inherently less capability and aptitude, and thus it should be assumed they are underqualified, no matter their track record, skills or achievements, while bias leads folks to assume positive qualities and traits for their white male counterparts, despite having no proof or evidence of those qualities before they are assumed to be present. This is why Donald Trump, a twice-impeached convicted felon with multiple bankruptcies who helped lead an attempted coup of the government, is able to run for president again with a Cheshire-like grin on his face, and his supporters don’t bat an eye."
Therefore, your intended parody to highlight a double-standard unfortunately misunderstands what DEI truly is. The irony, of course, is that you would have benefited from actually reading this article that you cited, and learning that the two uses of "DEI" are very, very different.
On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote: “Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music!
I lie awake in bed at night wondering how you manage to create such insightful, articulate, and educated posts.
On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote: “Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music!
I lie awake in bed at night wondering how you manage to create such insightful, articulate, and educated posts.
What is your secret.
How do you do it.
You can take comfort in knowing that you’re the black Hulk Hogan of BlackJack’s dreams
On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote: “Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music!
Would you care to share any of your own opinions regarding the discussion? So far you just seem annoyed that other people have opinions.
On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote: “Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music!
Would you care to share any of your own opinions regarding the discussion? So far you just seem annoyed that other people have opinions.
Seems like a pointless discussion. You get to decide how you define the words you use and you also get to decide how to define the words I use? If you say DEI it means awesome inclusive stuff and when I say DEI I mean Nigger with the hard R? (Not you specifically but that's the gist of DPB's post)
Great. Not much to talk about.
and the gist of the Huffpo article:
Somehow for those people, DEI ― which actually means creating practices, policies and behaviors that create better financial, mental and physical outcomes that benefit everyone, including white men ― is interchangeably used as a derogatory alternative for the N-word.
On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote: “Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music!
I lie awake in bed at night wondering how you manage to create such insightful, articulate, and educated posts.
What is your secret.
How do you do it.
You can take comfort in knowing that you’re the black Hulk Hogan of BlackJack’s dreams
*glass shatters* is Stone Cold Steve Austin's entrance music
On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote: “Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music!
I lie awake in bed at night wondering how you manage to create such insightful, articulate, and educated posts.
What is your secret.
How do you do it.
You can take comfort in knowing that you’re the black Hulk Hogan of BlackJack’s dreams
*glass shatters* is Stone Cold Steve Austin's entrance music
Fair point, but we can all smell what you and DPB are cooking
On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote: “Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music!
Would you care to share any of your own opinions regarding the discussion? So far you just seem annoyed that other people have opinions.
Seems like a pointless discussion. You get to decide how you define the words you use and you also get to decide how to define the words I use? If you say DEI it means awesome inclusive stuff and when I say DEI I mean Nigger with the hard R? (Not you specifically but that's the gist of DPB's post)
Somehow for those people, DEI ― which actually means creating practices, policies and behaviors that create better financial, mental and physical outcomes that benefit everyone, including white men ― is interchangeably used as a derogatory alternative for the N-word.
I don't know what to tell you. You need to keep an open mind instead of chomping at the bit to argue with anyone who has a position you don't share. I don't have any trouble understanding the argument that while DEI is an acronym with a specific definition, it gets misused by right-wingers attempting to co-opt it as a coded racial slur. It's not rocket science, and just going *scoff*, dog whistles?!? doesn't invalidate what they're saying.
You don't need to look any father than oBlade's most recent posts to see that he doesn't understand DEI, but is perfectly happy to throw the term around as he rails against what he thinks are liberal snowflakes. He's using it in a way that is different from what it actually means. And, no, calling that out isn't dictating his words or their meanings. If we can only have discussions on terms that you find acceptable, then that's a problem. For you, mostly.
On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote: “Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music!
Would you care to share any of your own opinions regarding the discussion? So far you just seem annoyed that other people have opinions.
Seems like a pointless discussion. You get to decide how you define the words you use and you also get to decide how to define the words I use? If you say DEI it means awesome inclusive stuff and when I say DEI I mean Nigger with the hard R? (Not you specifically but that's the gist of DPB's post)
What I actually wrote:
"conservatives assert that Harris is the Democratic nominee only because she's a woman of color, and not because she's qualified, currently the vice president, and overwhelmingly the most popular alternative to Joe Biden. These sexist and racist attacks are summarized by conservatives using the term "DEI" as a disparaging term, in the same way that they've flipped the positive academic definition of "woke" into a derisive label"
So, no, equating DEI with the N-word is not the gist of my post. Maybe you believe it's the gist of oBlade's article, or maybe you misread what I wrote. Maybe you disagree with my characterization of how conservatives use "DEI", but it's not helpful to post the way you're posting.
On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote: “Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music!
Would you care to share any of your own opinions regarding the discussion? So far you just seem annoyed that other people have opinions.
Seems like a pointless discussion. You get to decide how you define the words you use and you also get to decide how to define the words I use? If you say DEI it means awesome inclusive stuff and when I say DEI I mean Nigger with the hard R? (Not you specifically but that's the gist of DPB's post)
Somehow for those people, DEI ― which actually means creating practices, policies and behaviors that create better financial, mental and physical outcomes that benefit everyone, including white men ― is interchangeably used as a derogatory alternative for the N-word.
As one of the people who was explaining that DEI is used as a slur by many right wing commentators I’d like to clarify that I don’t think that you specifically or any other tl poster in here were using it that way. Conservatives use it among themselves to rile up their base, much like “inner city gangs” etc. but there’s no point dogwhistling here because there aren’t any dogs. In this context you were neither a secret racist nor cynically reaching out to the secret racists with a code.
EPT
